1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

MFA No.202539/2018 (CPC)

Between:

1. Basavaling,

S/o.Shivanand Gundagi,

Age: 29 years,

Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,

Taluk: Bhalki,

Dist: Bidar-585 328.

2. Shivanand,

S/o.Mahadevappa Gundagi,

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,

Taluk: Bhalki,

Dist: Bidar-585 328.

... Appellants

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

And:

1. Dashrath,

S/o.Tulsiram Patil,

Since dead, Rep. by L.Rs.

(a) Smt.Ratnamala,

W/o.late Dasharath,

Aged about 66 years,

2

Occ: Household Work,

R/o. Morambi village & Post,

Taluk: Bhalki,

Dist: Bidar-585 328.

(b) Smt.Chaya,

D/o.late Dasharath,

Aged about 43 years,

Occ: Household,

R/o.Valasangi,

Taluk: Ahmedpur,

Dist: Latur,

State: Maharashtra-413 512.

(c) Daivasheela,

D/o.late Dasharath,

Aged about 40 years,

Occ: Household,

R/o.Ashiti,

Taluk: Pandrapur,

Dist: Solapur,

State: Maharashtra-413 001.

(d) Smt.Shilpa,

D/o.late Dasharath,

Aged about 36 years,

Occ: Household,

R/o.Babhagaon,

Taluk & Dist: Latur,

State: Maharashtra-413 512.

(e) Smt.Seema,

D/o.late Dasharath,

Aged about 32 years,

Occ: Household,

R/o.Barsi, Taluk: Barsi,

Dist: Solapur,

State: Maharashtra-413 001.

3

2. Shashikanth,

S/o.Dashrath Patil,

Age: 35 years,

Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.village: Morambi & Bhalki,

Taluk: Bhalki,

Dist: Bidar-585 328.

... Respondents

(By Sri Ravi B.Patil, Advocate for R-1(a) to R1(c)

and R-2)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, praying to allow this appeal and to

appropriately modify the order dt.19.11.2018 passed in

I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.38/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Bhalki and to pass any other appropriate orders, int

her interest of justice.

This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the Court

delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

MFA No.202539/2018 is filed by the plaintiff

aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in

O.S.No.38/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Bhalki,

upon the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim order restraining the

defendants/their agents from causing illegal interference

and obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property.

4

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the

owners in possession of suit schedule property consisting

of 5 acres of land having purchased the same in terms of

deeds of sale dated 26.06.2001 and 21.11.2001 and have

been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1

and his wife had executed first of the aforesaid deeds of

sale dated 26.06.2001 for a valuable consideration in

favour of Plaintiff No.1 conveying 3 acres of suit land.

Remaining 2 acres of land was purchased by Plaintiff No.2

under

the

sale

deed

dated

21.11.2001

from

one

Mr.Rajappa who in turn had purchased the same from

defendant No.1. That though the defendants are not

having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule

property, have been causing interference and obstructing

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property by the plaintiff. In response to the said

application, defendants filed objections. The sale of suit

schedule property by the defendants in favour of the

Plaintiff No.1 in terms of deed of sale dated 26.06.2001 is

5

not disputed. The sale of 2 acres of land by the defendant

in favour of Rajappa who in turn sold the same to the

Plaintiff No.2 in terms of deed of sale dated 21.11.2001 is

also not disputed. The possession of the property by the

plaintiffs is also not disputed. However, it is contended by

the defendant that subsequent to sale of the property,

there was widening of the road on the eastern side of the

plaint schedule p